From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:34:41 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce PCI <-> CPU address conversion [1/2]
Message-Id: <20041015143441.A31625@jurassic.park.msu.ru>
List-Id: <linux-ia64.vger.kernel.org>
References: <20041014124737.GM16153@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20041014182704.A13971@jurassic.park.msu.ru> <20041014143924.GP16153@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20041015071926.GA11457@twiddle.net>
In-Reply-To: <20041015071926.GA11457@twiddle.net>; from rth@twiddle.net on Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 12:19:26AM -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 12:19:26AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> So you conclude from 50% of the ports implementing things in a 
> particular way that you should invent a totally new interface?
> Isn't the obvious solution to implement the existing interface
> for the ports that don't have it?

Definitely.
Besides, pci_bus_to_phys() name is quite misleading. Sounds like
invitation to use phys_to_virt() with the returned value...
pcibios_bus_to_resource as the inverse of pcibios_resource_to_bus
would be much cleaner.

Ivan.